Ignoring your over-generalizations.....
If an individual is found not guilty by reason of insanity, that was the ruling of the jury. Unless you were actually present for the trial, or a medical expert who can contest that determinatin, it sounds like you're just complaining you don't like the results.
As to "sex offenders", that terms refers to such a broad range of people -- from rapists and child molestors to people caught urinating in public -- that the label is pretty much worthless.
If you don't like the laws, get them changed. That's the way our legal system works.
2007-03-15 12:48:27
·
answer #1
·
answered by coragryph 7
·
2⤊
2⤋
Sex offenders have a different pathology that makes them much more dangerous. Their victim profile is much larger.
Women who commit infantacide are less dangerous to the general public because they have a very specific pathology that makes them attack their own children, so if they are removed from contact with their children, they are not likely to harm anyone else. They don't get "a couple years in the loony bin" they usually get long prison terms and mandatory mental health treatment for many, many years.
2007-03-15 19:50:12
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
In many ways sex offences are far more damaging than a murder, and really should have tougher penalties enforced. the effects of a sexuall offence can be felt for a life time after it occurs.
many courts and psycologists tend to see the act of a mother killing a child as a loss of sanity, mother child bonds are probably the strongest instinctive relationship there is (save maybe twins), and for a mother to commit murder of a child is seen as a loss of sanity.
that doesnt make it right, but certainly psycological and emotional factors tend to be far more common in these cases than any other form of homocide.
That said, there is a word used to descibe this act, it is like homocide, does anyone know it??
2007-03-15 19:51:48
·
answer #3
·
answered by daeman_83 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes, like the woman in Texas Andrea Yates who murdered her five children. She chased one around the house until she caught him and drown him in the baththub. She should've gotten the death penalty. Yet, she was a woman and apparently suffered from depression. It seems if you want to get a slap on the wrist, you say you suffered from depression and is not your fault. This is what I don't like when they say it isn't their fault, whose fault is it? It certainly wasn't the children's fault nor society's. But people like to blame others instead of the criminal. We need to be tougher and really punish women like this. I hate any crime against children and I think is repulsive that she was denied the death penalty. Justice wasn't done for the innocent children.
2007-03-16 08:48:42
·
answer #4
·
answered by cynical 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
I agree that there should be more of a sliding scale of sex offenders. It isn't really the same thing when say you are arrested for streaking at a ballgame as it is if you molest children. If you don't like the laws of your community, you should take steps to change them. Talk to your elected officials.
2007-03-15 19:47:56
·
answer #5
·
answered by QuestionWyrm 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Sex offenders should be treated poorly, however woman that kill their children, while they should be held responsible have to be nuts. There is a difference. If they just kill them to get out of the responsibility, they should suffer the same consequences as any criminal.
2007-03-15 19:54:19
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
You have a valid point. Women who molest children or murder their own children should receive severe punishment under the law.
2007-03-15 22:38:42
·
answer #7
·
answered by nowyouknow 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
That makes sense. I mean, I wouldn't kill my kids if I didn't want them, that's what orphanages are for ( sheltering your kids, not killing them :P ) but to kill them? That is psychotic, and there should be a HUGE fine and at least 2 years in the big house, and spend some time in an insane asylum , if you catch my drift.
2007-03-15 19:48:43
·
answer #8
·
answered by Hugh Jass 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
I agree. GIving these mothers the excuse of post-partum depression is horrible. Women probably had that 50years ago too, but you didn't hear about any killing their children from it.
I think the term that other user is referring to is genocide.
2007-03-15 19:52:47
·
answer #9
·
answered by KC 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
At least they are in the looney bin a long time. But some are sent to prison for life. All do not get off.
2007-03-15 19:49:15
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋